Areas of Interest

E. Scott Mayfield

Scott Mayfield is a Senior Lecturer of Business Administration in the Finance Unit at the Harvard Business School. Prior rejoining the faculty in 2011, Professor Mayfield was an assistant professor and member of the Finance Unit at HBS from 1997 to 2001. Professor Mayfield currently teaches the second semester finance course in the first year of the MBA program, as well as Finance for Senior Executives and the corporate finance component of the Program for Leadership Development in the Executive Education Program. Previously, Professor Mayfield has taught the advanced corporate finance course in the second year of the MBA program and has been on the faculty of numerous executive education programs, including the Program for Management Development (now GMP), Focused Financial Management, and Creating Value through Corporate Restructuring.

His research focuses on valuation, asset pricing, and the dynamic nature of corporate decision making, including capital budgeting decisions, financing, and payout policies. His articles have been published in a variety of academic journals, including the Journal of Financial Economics, the Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, the Journal of Economics and Business, and the Physical Review A. Professor Mayfield has also written numerous case studies on a range of valuation, financing, and strategic decision making topics. His current research focuses on the valuation and financing of startup ventures.

In addition to his academic research, Professor Mayfield has served as a consultant to numerous corporations and investment advisors. He has also served as an expert witness in litigation matters involving complex valuation and corporate finance issues. Prior to rejoining the HBS Faculty, Professor Mayfield was the Financial Markets Practice Leader and Vice President at Charles River Associates.

Professor Mayfield received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in Economics with Highest Honors from Williams College.

This paper provides an introduction to alternative models of uncertain commodity prices. A model of commodity price movements is the engine around which any valuation methodology for commodity production projects is built, whether discounted cash flow (DCF) models or the recently developed modern asset pricing (MAP) methods. The accuracy of the valuation is in part dependent on the quality of the engine employed. This paper provides an overview of several basic commodity price models and explains the essential differences among them. We also show how futures prices can be used to discriminate among the models and to estimate better key parameters of the model chosen.

Aware of the impact that modern society was having on the environment, Ashley Telkes had always tried to be cognizant of her own impact on the environment and to take reasonable steps to mitigate her own effects. Having already implemented a number of passive measures to minimize her “carbon footprint,” Telkes must now confront the bigger decision of whether or not to invest in solar panels to generate electricity for her home. Although pre-disposed to pursue environmentally friendly alternatives, the project entailed significant up-front expenses and Telkes could not afford to make a poor financial decision. Telkes must assess the financial merits of the project, as well as understand the regulatory and technological risks associated with going forward or choosing to delay.

On June 21, 2016, Tesla Motors, Inc. announced its offer to acquire SolarCity, bringing CEO Elon Musk one step closer to completing his goal of moving the world from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a solar-electric one. Markets and analysts were mixed in their reaction to the announcement; some thought the deal would be a distraction to Tesla management at a critical time; others thought it was a “bailout” of SolarCity. Following weeks of due diligence, Tesla and SolarCity finalized their merger agreement and worked to justify the transaction. Joan Banister, a financial advisor, must prepare to address her clients’ concerns about their various financial positions in Tesla and SolarCity.

In early 2015, Amy Hood, CFO of Microsoft, and the rest of the senior leadership team faced a set of fundamental choices. The firm had opportunities to serve customers in ways that would be associated with higher growth but lower margin. Some of these opportunities involved a shift from perpetual licensing to subscription sales. Whatever choices are made must be articulated to investors and employees.

In April 2013, Procter & Gamble (P&G), the world’s largest consumer packaged goods (CPG) company, announced that it would extend its payment terms to suppliers by 30 days. At the same time, P&G announced a new supply chain financing (SCF) program giving suppliers the ability to receive discounted payments for their P&G receivables. Fibria Celulose, a Brazilian supplier of kraft pulp, joined the program in 2013, but was re-evaluating the costs and benefits of participating in the SCF program in the summer of 2015. The firm’s treasury group and its US country manager must decide whether to keep using the program and, if so, whether to keep their existing SCF banking relationship or start a new relationship with another global SCF bank.

In December 2015, Canadian Pacific Railroad (CPR) has just made its third bid to acquire Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC), one of the largest railroads in the United States. Having rejected the prior offers, NSC’s CEO James Squires and the NSC board must now value the current offer including the projected merger synergies as well as a recently added contingent value right (CVR) designed to “sweeten” the offer and decide how to respond.

This case analyzes IBM's financial performance and its capital allocation decisions over a 10-year period from 2004-2013, during which IBM returned more than $140B to shareholders through a combination of dividends and share repurchases. During this time, CEO Sam Palmisano created, announced, and then regularly updated a long-term financial "roadmap" as part of the firm's strategic transformation. The roadmap showed both a destination (a target EPS number) and a detailed path to that destination in terms of revenue growth, margin expansion, and share repurchases. After successfully achieving its first roadmap, the firm announced a second 5-year roadmap known as the "2015 EPS roadmap."
The case is set in May 2014, just after IBM's annual investor briefing. Despite more than 10 years of strong financial performance, IBM reported relatively weak financial results in the first quarter of 2014. Sophia Johnson, an equity analyst, must decide whether to revise her investment recommendation based on what she heard that day.

Molycorp, the western hemisphere's only producer of rare earth minerals, was in the middle of a $1 billion capital expenditure project in its effort to become a vertically integrated supplier of rare earth minerals, oxides, and metals. Yet it had just reported lower than expected revenues and earnings for the second quarter of 2012. In response to the announcement, its stock price fell 29% (its stock price had fallen from $77 to $11 in the past 18 months). The weakening financial performance was due in large part to falling prices for rare earth minerals. With less internally-generated cash flow available to fund the project, management had to decide: how much capital to raise, what kind to raise, and when to raise it. These decisions would determine its capital structure, at least in the short term, as well as its ability to implement its business strategy.

Molycorp, the Western hemisphere's only producer of rare earth minerals, was in the middle of a $1 billion capital expansion in its effort to become a vertically integrated supplier of rare earth minerals, oxides, and metals. After reporting lower than expected revenues and earnings for the second quarter of 2012, management needed to design a new funding strategy for the firm. In August 2012, Molycorp announced it would issue $120 million of equity and $360 million of convertible debt. To facilitate the issuance of convertible debt, the firm entered a "share lending agreement" with Morgan Stanley whereby Morgan Stanley would borrow shares from Molycorp in a transaction referred to as a "Happy Meal." The goal was to help convertible debt investors "hedge their respective investments through short sales." The challenge of the case is to understand why Molycorp used this financing strategy and what impact it would likely have on the firm, its prospects, and its stock price.

In August 2011, Morgan Brothers Bank was issuing a $2.5 million reverse convertible note with payoffs linked to the price of Molycorp's common stock. These financially engineered securities were just one of many kinds of structured notes available in the retail market. Investors must decide whether the notes were fairly priced and whether they offered a favorable risk-return trade-off.

Molycorp, the western hemisphere's only producer of rare earth minerals, was in the middle of a $1 billion capital expenditure project in its effort to become a vertically integrated supplier of rare earth minerals, oxides, and metals. Yet it had just reported lower than expected revenues and earnings for the second quarter of 2012. In response to the announcement, its stock price fell 29% (its stock price had fallen from $77 to $11 in the past 18 months). The weakening financial performance was due in large part to falling prices for rare earth minerals. With less internally-generated cash flow available to fund the project, management had to decide: how much capital to raise, what kind to raise, and when to raise it. These decisions would determine its capital structure, at least in the short term, as well as its ability to implement its business strategy.

Slater & Gordon (S&G), a midsized Australian law firm with a high-growth consolidation strategy, had an initial public offering (IPO) scheduled for May 2007. Due to a series of regulatory changes in Australia in recent years, the IPO provided an opportunity for S&G to become the first publicly-traded law firm in the world. The firm and its underwriters had just issued a prospectus and were now in the process of lining up investors for the offering. Gloria Rosen, a portfolio manager at Freemantle Securities, was trying to decide whether to buy the stock for her small-cap growth fund. With only a few days left to place an order for the offering, she had to decide whether to invest and, if so, how much to invest. To make her investment decision, Rosen had to understand the value implications of the firm's business model and its growth strategy, as well as the relevant risks.

Esty, Benjamin C., and E. Scott Mayfield. "Creating the First Public Law Firm: The IPO of Slater & Gordon Limited (TN)." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 213-027, April 2013. (Revised June 2013.)
View Details

Molly Miller, an Intel employee and shareholder, must decide whether to vote FOR or AGAINST Intel's proposed 2009 option exchange program. Given recent declines in Intel's stock price, more than 99% of Intel's outstanding employee stock options are "underwater," and employee motivation and retention are serious concerns. If the program is approved by shareholders, Molly must decide whether to participate in the program and tender her underwater employee stock options. As a shareholder and an employee, Molly must assess the pros and cons of Intel's proposed exchange program from both perspectives. In addition, she must consider Intel's proposal in light of the alternative approaches pursued by other corporations that have recently confronted the problem of underwater employee stock options.

Cosmetics company L'Occitane en Provence must decide if it is the right time to go public, and, if so, where to list. The firm could list on Euronext in Paris, close to the firm's headquarters in southern France, on one of the large exchanges in the U.S., or perhaps in Asia, where much of the firm's future growth is expected. The case provides opportunities to discuss the benefits and costs of going public, including valuation implications, and illustrates the choices faced by a prospective IPO firm that operates in a global setting.

The CEO of a successful Internet start-up must decide whether to delay the company's initial public offering following a significant decline in the NASDAQ market during the spring of 2000. The company's CFO is asked to reevaluate the company's projected cash flow needs in light of the new requirement that in order to go public, Internet companies must show positive cash flows within a 12-month horizon. While examining ways to extend the company's working capital, the CFO considers various changes to the company's existing business model, including changes in the company's contractual relationships with both its suppliers and its customers.